Global warming causing 'irreversible' mass melting in Antarctica - scientist

[sirineou]

26 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

reefs conditions is a very local phenomena, they could well be in a good

interval of a cycle just a few miles in any direction, you were unlucky

Not true,

all reefs are in decline. A coral reef is made of thin layers of calcium. Acidification inhibits that process, itn is projected that if nothing is done all hard corals will be gone by 2050

  Google "Ocean acidification" and " Ocean acidification CO2"   

The following is a very short vid. 1,25 min. if you are interested please investles that three minutes of your life and watch  both videos. you will not regret it. 

also google "coral bleaching" the following vert short video  is only 1,3 min long, 

I am pretty sure , little  if anything will be done. Financial interests and their propaganda machine is too powerful IMO.

By the time it becomes obvious to the masses it will sadly be too late.  

[thaibeachlovers]

8 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Electricity derived from solar and wind power is the fuel of the future. Admittedly not for aircraft, but everything else.

EV car batteries, which don't last long, are polluting when disposed of ( and very expensive to replace ), and there isn't enough electricity generation to make current electric cars viable en mass. Anyway they are fine in cities, but useless for long distance travel as battery capacity is too small.

I'm for electric cars, but powered by the only realistic option- hydrogen. I don't hear much about that from the 97% of scientists, LOL.

So long as I can't drive 7 hours with a 5 minute refuel, I'm sticking with petrol/ diesel , like almost everyone on the planet.

[brokenbone]

56 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Not true,

all reefs are in decline. A coral reef is made of thin layers of calcium. Acidification inhibits that process, itn is projected that if nothing is done all hard corals will be gone by 2050

  Google "Ocean acidification" and " Ocean acidification CO2"   

The following is a very short vid. 1,25 min. if you are interested please investles that three minutes of your life and watch  both videos. you will not regret it. 

also google "coral bleaching" the following vert short video  is only 1,3 min long, 

I am pretty sure , little  if anything will be done. Financial interests and their propaganda machine is too powerful IMO.

By the time it becomes obvious to the masses it will sadly be too late.  

no, and no.

reefs are recovering, they go in cycles of death and recovery,

they need co2 to build their shells in the first instance,

and wouldnt even have evolved the way they did without the high levels of co2 that was

https://www.calacademy.org/educators/how-do-corals-build-reefs

http://www.coralsoftheworld.org/page/evolution/

https://phys.org/news/2019-02-drivers-coral-reef-recovery-long-term.html

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/remarkable-coral-recovery-on-southern-great-barrier-reef-island-20190626-p521kv.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIpDngGm5cQ

 

[sirineou]

9 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

no, and no.

reefs are recovering, they go in cycles of death and recovery,

they need co2 to build their shells in the first instance,

and wouldnt even have evolved the way they did without the high levels of co2 that was

https://www.calacademy.org/educators/how-do-corals-build-reefs

http://www.coralsoftheworld.org/page/evolution/

https://phys.org/news/2019-02-drivers-coral-reef-recovery-long-term.html

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/remarkable-coral-recovery-on-southern-great-barrier-reef-island-20190626-p521kv.html

Did you  take the 1.25 min to watch the video on ocean acidification? 

 

NOAA report below. 

" According to the report, left unchecked, combined local and global pressures will push 90 percent of coral reefs to threatened status (all non-blue colors) in less than 20 years (by 2030) and nearly all reefs will be threatened by 2050."

https://sos.noaa.gov/datasets/coral-reef-risk-outlook/

If by that it is meant that coral reefs are recovering, then yes you are right. 

 

[brokenbone]

2 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Did you  take the 1.25 min to watch the video on ocean acidification? 

 

NOAA report below. 

" According to the report, left unchecked, combined local and global pressures will push 90 percent of coral reefs to threatened status (all non-blue colors) in less than 20 years (by 2030) and nearly all reefs will be threatened by 2050."

https://sos.noaa.gov/datasets/coral-reef-risk-outlook/

If by that it is meant that coral reefs are recovering, then yes you are right. 

 

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/remarkable-coral-recovery-on-southern-great-barrier-reef-island-20190626-p521kv.html

'Remarkable' coral recovery on southern Great Barrier Reef island

[sirineou]

3 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/remarkable-coral-recovery-on-southern-great-barrier-reef-island-20190626-p521kv.html

'Remarkable' coral recovery on southern Great Barrier Reef island

I don't understand, are you arguing with me or are you supporting my case? because the above article supports my case.

 

 

 

[brokenbone]

1 minute ago, sirineou said:

I don't understand, are you arguing with me or are you supporting my case? because the above article supports my case.

 

 

 

noaa's guess is falsified by the evidence

[sirineou]

3 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

noaa's guess is falsified by the evidence

too cryptic for me. please explain

what evidence??

 

[sirineou]

37 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

noaa's guess is falsified by the evidence

if you don't believe NOAA here is what the Australian Government Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority  (GBRMPA) has to say.

"Climate change impacts on coral reefs are predicted to worsen and critically affect the survival of coral reefs globally without the strongest possible climate change mitigation.

The Reef is already experiencing the consequences of climate change — most notably, two consecutive years of coral bleaching in 2016 and 2017. " 

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/the-reef/reef-health

Trust me when I say , no one in the world hope against all hope more than me , that I they and I, are wrong. But as PADI certified scuba diver with over 30 years of experience , I have personally seen the evidence. 

[brokenbone]

28 minutes ago, sirineou said:

too cryptic for me. please explain

what evidence??

 

according to alarmist hypothesis, everything is getting 'worse' by the month,

and nothing can recover because conditions got even worse then

conditions were when the first 'disaster' struck,

so its an uninterrupted downward spiral.

but nature show  evidence in the form of rather predictable cycles,

both in climate and in biology, thus they should dismiss their hypotheis

and make a new guess, but for some reason they persist,

and its plausible that the allowances they get is the culprit,

they get rewarded for dumb guesses

http://blog.friendsofscience.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Lindzen12-March-ClimateScienceNOTansweringQ.pdf

[brokenbone]

9 minutes ago, sirineou said:

if you don't believe NOAA here is what the Australian Government Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority  (GBRMPA) has to say.

"Climate change impacts on coral reefs are predicted to worsen and critically affect the survival of coral reefs globally without the strongest possible climate change mitigation.

The Reef is already experiencing the consequences of climate change — most notably, two consecutive years of coral bleaching in 2016 and 2017. " 

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/the-reef/reef-health

Trust me when I say , no one in the world hope against all hope, that I they and I, are wrong. But as PADI certified scuba diver with over 30 years of experience , I have personally seen the evidence. 

how much money do they get from the state to take pics of the reef if they peddle FUD vs

when they dont peddle FUD ?

does it come with extras like a UN conference with wine & dine in the middle of africa ?

this whole mockery of rational analysis has become a multi billion industry,

media gets a ticket to observe drivel so they are into it.

i hope the climate funding gets shut down altogether for 10 years

[sirineou]

3 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

according to alarmist hypothesis, everything is getting 'worse' by the month,

and nothing can recover because conditions got even worse then

conditions were when the first 'disaster' struck,

so its an uninterrupted downward spiral.

but nature show  evidence in the form of rather predictable cycles,

both in climate and in biology, thus they should dismiss their hypotheis

and make a new guess, but for some reason they persist,

and its plausible that the allowances they get is the culprit,

they get rewarded for dumb guesses

http://blog.friendsofscience.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Lindzen12-March-ClimateScienceNOTansweringQ.pdf

" Friends of Science (FoS) is a non-profit advocacy organization based in Calgary, Alberta, Canada"

"The organization rejects the established scientific conclusion that humans are largely responsible for the currently observed global warming. "

"They are largely funded by the fossil fuel industry. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends_of_Science

As I said in my first post, Financial interest propaganda is too strong I don't expect anything to be done until it is toolate, 

[sirineou]

1 minute ago, brokenbone said:

how much money do they get from the state to take pics of the reef if they peddle FUD vs

when they dont peddle FUD ?

does it come with extras like a UN conference with wine & dine in the middle of africa ?

So you don't trust NOAA and the Authority in charge of taking care of the Great barrier Reef but you trust an organisation funded by the fossil fuel industry?  

[brokenbone]

6 minutes ago, sirineou said:

" Friends of Science (FoS) is a non-profit advocacy organization based in Calgary, Alberta, Canada"

"The organization rejects the established scientific conclusion that humans are largely responsible for the currently observed global warming. "

"They are largely funded by the fossil fuel industry. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends_of_Science

As I said in my first post, Financial interest propaganda is too strong I don't expect anything to be done until it is toolate, 

the pdf is written by dr lindzen, and he seriously question the funding

that has attracted parasites to science

[brokenbone]

5 minutes ago, sirineou said:

So you don't trust NOAA and the Authority in charge of taking care of the Great barrier Reef but you trust an organisation funded by the fossil fuel industry?  

the variability in ocean ph is higher from week to week then the alleged decrease,

there is insufficient long term data to make any meaningful statement.

carbonic acid is a very weak protonizer, this in stark contrast to sulfur acids

erupting from underwater volcanoes, the one thing we can state with certainty

is that earth is cooling and so that activity will slow down over a very long time

[Lacessit]

10 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

This has nothing to do with Religions man. Do you see what I mean, that is bleedover. Your fight is with far more then climate isn't it? You are wrong about solar and wind. There is not enough and wind comes with its own issues as - YOU KNOW - if you are a research scientist who worked in that field. Those goals met by the USA have nothing to do with Trump - Once again, I ask that you examine yourself and your motives. If you have issues with conservatives in general say so . IF you have issues with Donald Trump say so, if you are opposed to religious people, and don't like churches, those are your problems. AND I DO MEAN THOSE ARE YOUR PROBLEMS. but those issues have nothing to do with the science. You are being programmed by you email inbox and what you watch.  That is why I walked to the right. I began to notice that it was one big umbrella of issues that one must BELIEVE. A basket of MUST BELIEVE. and MUST give money to. 

 

If you believe there is a Revolution that needs to happen right now to save the World then you owe it to yourself to save it, otherwise you are nothing but a weak willed individual afraid to act. I ask that before you act you check your beliefs. Thoroughly.

 

Communists they believe. They decide they want to re-educate everyone else - get religion out of their heads, get ideas that are not in agreement with the program OUT OF THEIR HEADS, they have zero tolerance for dissent because dissent is against their program of saving the world.

 

SO I ask you DO YOU have a program for saving the world? Do you?

No need to shout, I can hear you.

Classic attacking the messenger, it's called ad hominem. The labels you are attempting to attach to me are wrong-headed. Ascribing sinister motives to me is BS.

The superiority of renewable energy is already being demonstrated in Australia, where fossil fuel generators are losing out badly, with a shrinking customer base. Tesla Powerwalls are only the beginning. Think back to what a computer or mobile phone looked like at the first iteration.

It's a facile argument I should be designing a program for saving the world, as someone who is retired and out of the picture. Electricity generated by solar and wind power, stored by mega-batteries, would be my answer. Did you know the latest Tesla performance vehicle leaves Mercs and BMW's in the weeds? There is no real reason why, with the exception of aircraft, all other forms of transport cannot be powered that way.

Keep leaving the sad icons on my posts, they just demonstrate your credentials as a nattering nabob of negativity.

[sirineou]

30 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

the variability in ocean ph is higher from week to week then the alleged decrease,

there is insufficient long term data to make any meaningful statement.

carbonic acid is a very weak protonizer, this in stark contrast to sulfur acids

erupting from underwater volcanoes, the one thing we can state with certainty

is that earth is cooling and so that activity will slow down over a very long time

Ok you convinced me.

[thaicurious]

3 hours ago, brokenbone said:

...john cook himself has written

a piece of propaganda on 97% consensus which is bs from start to finish...

https://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.htm

Climate Myth...

97% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven 

 

97% consensus result have been the subject of extensive denial among the usual climate contrarian suspects.

 

The 97% Consensus is a Robust Result

 

Nevertheless, the existence of the expert consensus on human-caused global warming is a reality, as is clear from an examination of the full body of evidence.  For example, Naomi Oreskes found no rejections of the consensus in a survey of 928 abstracts performed in 2004.  Doran & Zimmerman (2009) found a 97% consensus among scientists actively publishing climate research.  Anderegg et al. (2010) reviewed publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting human-caused global warming, and again found over 97% consensus among climate experts.  Cook et al. (2013) found the same 97% result through a survey of over 12,000 climate abstracts from peer-reviewed journals, as well as from over 2,000 scientist author self-ratings, among abstracts and papers taking a position on the causes of global warming.

 

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-determine-the-scientific-consensus-on-global-warming/

Kahan tested Republicans and Democrats on their scientific knowledge of global warming. He found that an overwhelming majority of both Republicans and Democrats know scientists believe CO2 causes global temperatures to rise. They also know that scientists believe that human-caused global warming leads to coastal flooding, rising temperatures and other ill effects.

 

And yet, when questioned outright, even highly educated Republicans underestimated the scientific consensus on climate change.

 

Kahan thinks this is because the question "What do scientists believe?" no longer measures people's climate knowledge. Rather, it indicates their ideology and worldview

 

 

4 hours ago, brokenbone said:

catherine heyhoe of political science u say ?

am i spose to be impressed by her credentials ?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katharine_Hayhoe

Katharine Anne Scott Hayhoe is an atmospheric scientist and professor of political science at Texas Tech University, where she is director of the Climate Science Center.

 

Hayhoe, who is an evangelical Christian, is the daughter of missionaries ... Her father, Doug Hayhoe, is a former science and technology coordinator for the Toronto District School Board,[11] and is currently an associate professor of education at Tyndale University College and Seminary in Toronto.

 

She met her husband, Andrew Farley, while doing graduate studies at the University of Illinois. Farley is a linguist and the pastor of an evangelical church

 

Hayhoe has worked at Texas Tech since 2005. She has authored more than 120 peer-reviewed publications.[15] She also co-authored some reports for the US Global Change Research Program, as well as some National Academy of Sciences reports,[16] including the 3rd National Climate Assessment,

 

Awards and honors

United Nations Champions of the Earth, 2019[19][35]

Foreign Policy magazine 100 Leading Global Thinkers, 2019[36]

Stephen H. Schneider Award for Outstanding Science Communication, 2018[37]

Fortune magazine's 50 World's Great Leaders, 2017[38]

National Center for Science Education Friend of the Planet award, 2016[39]

Time magazine's 100 Most Influential People, 2014[20][21][40]

American Geophysical Union Climate Communications Prize, 2014

[thaicurious]

8 hours ago, sirineou said:

I went scuba diving in the Florida keys two weeks ago, I had not being there for about twenty years. Molasses Reef was a pale imitation of its former self. Very sad!!

I want to take my daughter to see the reef before it is gone .

In the meantime the idiots a whistling in the dark, and the fat cats are laughing all the way to the bank.  

Very sad!! very sad indeed. 

Raised by boating parents some in the Caribbean back in the 70s and later in Florida, I've also seen the destruction while knowing what it's supposed to look like. Glad you'll take your kid to see what's left. But my last time down was my last time in a long time. My memory is that it once was about the most beautiful thing I'd ever seen. But the bleaching I saw on my last visit, there was so much of it, like an underwater ghost town, just makes me weep for the dead.

 

It is a horror what we've done to our planet.

 

 

[Lacessit]

6 minutes ago, thaicurious said:

Raised by boating parents some in the Caribbean back in the 70s and later in Florida, I've also seen the destruction while knowing what it's supposed to look like. Glad you took your kid to see what's left. But my last time down was my last time in a long time. My memory is that it once was about the most beautiful thing I'd ever seen. But the bleaching I saw on my last visit, there was so much of it, like an underwater ghost town, just makes me weep for dead.

 

It is a horror what we've done to our planet.

Greed is the driver. And it's getting worse, with about 100 billionaires controlling as much wealth as the poorest 50% of the world population. Why should they care, they can insulate themselves. The rise of gated communities is no accident.

Wars have created economic refugeeism. That will be a tea party compared to what happens with climate change.

Conservative models are predicting flows from the Tibetan glaciers to major river systems such as the Mekong and Ganges will be halved by 2050. Already, the Mekong is being harvested by China with more dams. I saw the Mekong ten years ago at Chiang Saen, it is nowhere near as wide or full now.

If the models are correct, about 2 billion people dependent on the flow of water will be affected adversely. I won't be around to see it.

[thaicurious]

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

Greed is the driver. And it's getting worse, with about 100 billionaires controlling as much wealth as the poorest 50% of the world population. Why should they care, they can insulate themselves. The rise of gated communities is no accident.

Wars have created economic refugeeism. That will be a tea party compared to what happens with climate change.

Conservative models are predicting flows from the Tibetan glaciers to major river systems such as the Mekong and Ganges will be halved by 2050. Already, the Mekong is being harvested by China with more dams. I saw the Mekong ten years ago at Chiang Saen, it is nowhere near as wide or full now.

If the models are correct, about 2 billion people dependent on the flow of water will be affected adversely. I won't be around to see it.

I understand what you say but while greed can cause and does worsen problems, there's plenty of billionaires trying to help the planet and its people. Besides the relatively recent wonderful https://givingpledge.org/ , millionaires and billionaires through philanthropies have probably done more good than harm though I don't have that quantified. 

 

I do not agree that greed caused this particularly. I think the more likely reason is that we simply didn't know any better. Even the data and connection on carbon only came in around 2007 I think. And projections are still being tweeked. So, sadly, even if there was speculation earlier before all the data was in, we only had the very hard evidence too late in the game.

 

Also I'd not blame greed for not stopping the world on a dime. Because that also would cause wars and famine and dislocations and great suffering now. So we need to reduce as best we can suffering later without causing too much suffering now. How to accomplish that ought be the legitimate political argument du forum.

[WalkingOrders]

3 hours ago, Lacessit said:

No need to shout, I can hear you.

Classic attacking the messenger, it's called ad hominem. The labels you are attempting to attach to me are wrong-headed. Ascribing sinister motives to me is BS.

The superiority of renewable energy is already being demonstrated in Australia, where fossil fuel generators are losing out badly, with a shrinking customer base. Tesla Powerwalls are only the beginning. Think back to what a computer or mobile phone looked like at the first iteration.

It's a facile argument I should be designing a program for saving the world, as someone who is retired and out of the picture. Electricity generated by solar and wind power, stored by mega-batteries, would be my answer. Did you know the latest Tesla performance vehicle leaves Mercs and BMW's in the weeds? There is no real reason why, with the exception of aircraft, all other forms of transport cannot be powered that way.

Keep leaving the sad icons on my posts, they just demonstrate your credentials as a nattering nabob of negativity.

If alternative sources are available, then they are used, a natural progression which the markets bring into play, one fuel source replaces another. This is simple economics. So if this is the case, then why are you on the left always screaming? You are screaming because you wish, correct me if I am wrong, to not follow this market mechanism you claim is already in play, and instead wish to force an abolition of fossil fuels. My contention here would be that alternatives to replace such a ban currently do not exist. You contend that they do, but if that were the case, then a transfer away from fossils would already happening. I agree that to certain degree this is happening, but no such replacement to support a fossil fuels ban exists.

 

If you believe otherwise, stop screaming at the rest of us and let the market do its job, just like it replaced whale oil.

[WalkingOrders]

12 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Plenty of links out there to the IPCC reports from the last few years,  their reports lay out what we need to do and how long we have until we enter a situation we can no longer prevent. .

I asked you a pretty direct question, you are the one claiming urgency  and we are bad people and all evidently because we are non-believers in a coming apocalypse. I've read the IPCC reports, tell me in your own words, how bad is it? What are we supposed to do? Ban fossil fuels? Nationalize the gas and oil Industry of the USA and shut it down? Ban container ships and Aircraft, what do you believe?

[WalkingOrders]

2 hours ago, thaicurious said:

Raised by boating parents some in the Caribbean back in the 70s and later in Florida, I've also seen the destruction while knowing what it's supposed to look like. Glad you'll take your kid to see what's left. But my last time down was my last time in a long time. My memory is that it once was about the most beautiful thing I'd ever seen. But the bleaching I saw on my last visit, there was so much of it, like an underwater ghost town, just makes me weep for the dead.

 

It is a horror what we've done to our planet.

 

 

So what is your suggestion, a ban on fossil fuels, the nationalization, and shutdown of the industry in your country?

[Bluespunk]

2 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

I asked you a pretty direct question, you are the one claiming urgency  and we are bad people and all evidently because we are non-believers in a coming apocalypse. I've read the IPCC reports, tell me in your own words, how bad is it? What are we supposed to do? Ban fossil fuels? Nationalize the gas and oil Industry of the USA and shut it down? Ban container ships and Aircraft, what do you believe?

I claimed that people are bad? Really? Quote that post please.

 

Equally, where did I use the words “non-believers” and “apocalypse”? Again, quote the post please. 
 

I believe that there needs to be action taken at a governmental level that enacts the recommendations of the IPCC. 

[WalkingOrders]

12 hours ago, thaicurious said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptical_Science

a climate science blog and information resource created in 2007 by Australian cognitive scientist John Cook....the site maintains a database of articles analyzing the merit of arguments put forth by those who oppose the mainstream scientific opinion on climate change.

 

https://skepticalscience.com/endorsements.shtml

"this is the best resource for information on climate myths on the internet. I can't recommend it highly enough. They even have an iPhone app!"

Katharine Hayhoe
Professor in the Department of Political Science and director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University

 

"There's a great website called Skeptical Science that has sort of a list of all of the various myths about climate change that have become commonplace in sort of among those who deny the reality of climate change and the actual scientific responses."

Michael Mann
Director of the Earth System Science Center, Penn State

 

"It is extremely helpful that I can just point these people to Skeptical Science, so I don't need to answer the same things again and again."

Stefan Rahmstorf
Professor of Physics of the Oceans at Potsdam University in Germany

 

"I frequently refer people to it. This is extraordinary in terms of advancing knowledge about climate change."

Naomi Oreskes
Professor of the History of Science, Harvard University, Co-author of Merchants of Doubt

 

"Skeptical Science is a fantastic resource for debunking misinformation about climate change..."

Simon Donner
Professor, Department of Geography, University of British Columbia

 

etc.

etc.

etc.

 

I am sure you can speak in your own words. What is your position, and what are you saying needs to be done?

[WalkingOrders]

5 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

I claimed that people are bad? Really? Quote that post please.

 

Equally, where did I use the words “non-believers” and “apocalypse”? Again, quote the post please. 
 

I believe that there needs to be action taken at a governmental level that enacts the recommendations of the IPCC. 

What Government is yours, and how do you see them as deficient?

[Bluespunk]

29 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

What Government is yours, and how do you see them as deficient?

Doesn't matter what my govt is, very few if any are taking real action.

 

Edit: I will concede those investing in renewable energy sources are moving in the right direction. I was being overly harsh above. However until we meet the recommendations of the IPCC, there is still work to be done.

[thaicurious]

2 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

So what is your suggestion, a ban on fossil fuels, the nationalization, and shutdown of the industry in your country?

Well, my first suggestion would be that you stop being so damned presumptuous. After you've regained some self control, I'd refer you back to a post you put your heart on wherein I laid out a general parameter of what I think reasonable (the specifics of which I might speculate but don't know that I can speak to well enough without further seeing some considered studies) :

 

3 hours ago, thaicurious said:

...I'd not (be) for not stopping the world on a dime. Because that also would cause wars and famine and dislocations and great suffering now. So we need to reduce as best we can suffering later without causing too much suffering now. How to accomplish that ought be the legitimate political argument du forum.

 

Regardless, it seems silly if not futile to discuss solutions to climate change with climate deniers.

 

2 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

I am sure you can speak in your own words. What is your position, and what are you saying needs to be done?

Not sure as to your thinking processes but you seem to be confusing some things. Besides that you had asked in two places what might be my position about which I'd already answered in a post you hearted, what you are commenting on here was my response to your prior complaint about no bylines, if I recall that conversation correctly. I was offering from the website about which you complained the approving voices of scientists and their identifications, their bylines, showing the website not devoid of these about which you complained. If you need further bylines, you can find them on the link I had provided for your review. Also you can search info on authors of posted articles on their search window.

 

For future reference, as to how I decide to answer a comment, be that by my own words or by words said by others, that's sort of entirely my decision, not at all yours.

 

Particularly in these ridiculous climate denial discussions I see no reason to reinvent the wheel on revolving disinformation for which the dubunking response is easily copy/pasted from better knowing others.

[WalkingOrders]

3 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Doesn't matter what my govt is, very few if any are taking real action.

 

Edit: I will concede those investing in renewable energy sources are moving in the right direction. I was being overly harsh above. However until we meet the recommendations of the IPCC, there is still work to be done.

Of course it matters, because that is the only Govt you have any control over via your participation. The only Gov you have any policy influence over. 

 

Are you here trying to influence other country's policy?

 

Some Govts are meeting IPCC recommendations. I for one do not believe that I should support offering carrots to Nations that do not, nor do I wish to interfere in those Nations to force them to do what should be voluntary.

 

I live in one of the most polluted cities in the world right now. Bangkok Thailand. All of South East Asia is covered in a sick cloud. Who do you wish to address your concerns to? The Paris accords are primarily about money, given, to somehow cause countries to do what they should already do. They are using climate as an extortion tool and I am not buying.